Microsoft's Big Stick in Peru 597
An anonymous reader points out a Wired story on the continuing Peru saga. In this latest episode, Wired notes that the U.S. Ambassador to Peru has chimed in in support of Microsoft and in opposition to Dr. Villanueva's bill which would have mandated open source software be used by the Peruvian government. On the one hand, sure, our diplomats have a national goal of promoting U.S. enterprise, but do we have to promote companies which we are simultaneously pursuing in court for numerous violations of our laws? Isn't that a bit counter-productive?
hm (Score:4, Funny)
Politics in America today (Score:4, Insightful)
The more I hear about stories like these, the more I think we need campaign finiance reform. Think how much more productive and progressive our laws would be if our senators weren't owned by companies. The problem I see with my fellow americans is that we tend to be, for lack of a better word, shallow. For most, memory of things political is only a few months at best. Further, yes, occasionally you get something like CBDTBA (or whatever it was named) that cause outrage, but the underlying problem - that most congressmen are owned my big cooperations (particularly republican, but democrats aren't immune either) - is the one that never gets solved.
Re:Politics in America today (Score:4, Interesting)
To veer this back on-topic, I should mention that there is a movement within the Greens to include a detailed plank on software rights and DRM in the next major release of our platform.
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Re:HIPPY ALERT!! (Score:2)
Oh? Roman and British Imperialism came to end, and so will the United States. Don't be so short-sighted to think that our empire is so righteous that it will last forever - it won't.
Also, what's with putting the word imperialism in quotes? Look it up then look in a mirror.
--
Re:HIPPY ALERT!! (Score:2)
Re:HIPPY ALERT!! (Score:3, Interesting)
But we have *no* way of knowing how long the stabilizing effects of mass media and popular culture (mostly by unification of the populace) will allow the current political structure to continue.
Your mass media and popular culture promote homogenization of society around a bunch of norms and standards of CONSUMPTION-ORIENTED society. It works in US because it's a world's sinkhole of products, and US is a sinkhole because of the lingering effect of economical devastation in WWII.
However most of the world doesn't have this free ride and has to support PRODUCTION over consumption -- American standards can't apply there. The more active will Americans become on trying to impose their culture, the more that culture will become arrogant and the more it will become filled with bragging about the wealth, the more hated it will become abroad, reaching the point when it will simply symbolize the enemy.
Re:HIPPY ALERT!! (Score:3, Insightful)
They also support common language, common values, and a whole shitload of other things. The consumption-oriented part is bad, but the rest of it is good--and, like I said, stabilizing.
Everything but language and some "common" (Christian, libertarian and anti-intellectual) values is consumption-oriented, and I am not sure about libertarian part.
Hmm... remind me again how much foreign aid comes out from this country. And what exactly did we do to incur that debt? Oh, yeah--nothing.
Most of the "foreign aid" is either indirect bribes to the government, or designed to destabilize foreign economy, or are loans made specifically to cause insolvency and dependency. In other words, tools of control and expansion.
America is hated because we do things in foreign countries half-assed. Not because we do things at all, but because we don't stand there and follow through on what we say we're going to do.
No, America is hated because it survives and prospers by destroying and enslaving others. If it does that in a half-assed way, or if someone has good intentions while implementing those destructive policies, it's not its victims' problem.
Re:HIPPY ALERT!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Okay, and the French hate us because. . . ? Or the Chinese? Or the Soviets, back when they existed? Or the pan-Islamists? The US has done some awfully sleazy stuff in the name of "democracy", but I think most people who hate us dislike our economic and cultural dominance, and our standing in the way of their own petty quests for empire. The countries who've truly earned the right to hate us aren't powerful or stable enough for people to even listen. If Angola starts preaching, I'll listen. The anti-Americans in Europe can go fuck themselves.
Besides, the crimes of the US government are still amateurish compared to the actions of all the other empires of the past century. Russia, Britain, and France were screwing up Asia and Africa long before we got there, and we just made an existing mess worse.
Two birds with one stone (Score:3, Interesting)
Yah, and `over there' would rather it happened on US soil. Who has the most right to say where a war should happen, `them' or `us'?
Because they actually do. There are two main reasons for this:
Agree. However, bear in mind that armaments corporations are far from the biggest beneficiaries in a war.
Think about World War II, in which companies like Ford and Bayer made money from selling to both sides of the war at once. Except where things got out of hand and their facilities were destroyed*, oil companies, steel companies, banks and many others all showed that in one way or another they thought of the war as a Godsend. Many Swiss banks, for example, did a roaring trade even in what were to all appearances financially destitute circumstances.
Consequentially, what you're basically looking for are two things:
* Krupp's factories, for example, seemed suspiciously immune to Allied bombing.
Re:The 'Bads' ?!? (Score:3, Informative)
Individuals also produce economic bads, pollution from their cars. This is already included in part of the current taxes on gasoline.
But why should we tax economic goods as we currently do when they provide positives for the company and the consumer. Though obviously some money is also needed from citizens for the military protection and infrastructure. And this can be done obviously based on income as its smart to spread it out amongs peoples abilities to pay. But why do we discourage the production of economic goods by taxing them?
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
The problem with campaign finance reform is similar to the problem with Peru passing this bill. Doing either limits the free market, limiting the ability to have free choice of which software or politicians to buy. Only by having a natural 'ecosystem' of software and politicians, having proprietary corporations being the top carnovires in each, can we be as great and proud as the USA.
</sarcasm>
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Set up a system where every dollar accumulated by candidates has to be accounted for (this already exists). The only acceptable sources of money are private citizens living in that person's district (for a house rep) or state (for a senator) or the candidates own pocket. No more donations from the party, which is primarily what causes the problems. This would effectively a lot of the money out of politics. To offset this, increase federal matching funds to 3x, 4x, or 5x instead of 2x - this would encourage people to follow abide by the rules restricting those matching funds (which include donation limits per person)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Unworkable and unconstitutional. You can't stop people from expressing political viewpoints without stomping all over the 1st Amendment. The real problem is that the federal government has grown so large and powerful that it is profitable for corporations to lobby for laws to benefit them or punish competitors. If the government would actually limit itself to its Consitutional duties, this problem would go away.
To offset this, increase federal matching funds to 3x, 4x, or 5x instead of 2x
Re:Politics in America today (Score:3, Insightful)
2) As far as the matching funds, they are already exist. That's the camel's nose, so to speak. I am just saying it should be extended, for the reason of making sure representatives represent the members of their district, and not cooperations, particularly those in far off states.
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
But you can make it illegal for someone running for office to accept such funds, or condone the actions of a group in support of their election that is not a part of their constituency. And we can *easily* make it illegal for the political parties (which are allready fairly regulated) to have anything to do with "soft" money at all.
The first amendment doesn't cover every thing that you might do that's "expressive." A heck of a lot of it, but not *everything.*
To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation
of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -Thomas Jefferson
Simple solution. Allow for one "soft pot" with unlimited contributions--and equal ratios of matching funds to everyone running for any election.
It strikes me as conducive to tyranny and chilling to the discourse necessary to properly pick a leader to allow simply propagation of quiet forums to be our only way of electing a representative. It seems that an abatment of regular and ordinary rights so as to ensure a level and fair discoure between those vying for public office is a noble deed, which would ensure a fair and unfettered choice among those contestants for all citizens at the polls.
Or in other words, it would be nice if public office wasn't limited to people with money and people who can cater to people with money. In the specific instance of an election, my words and views should be protected and ensured by law against being drowned out by the words and views of those with more wealth than I.
Re:Politics in America today (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not this:
Set up a system where the government doesn't have the power to arbitrarily fuck with every piggly aspect of your life, and maybe people won't be so interested in bribing politicians. You know, have private property really be private property; have free trade really be free trade.
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:2)
Re:Politics in America today (Score:3, Funny)
Great Plan (Score:5, Funny)
M$ Not Excluded! (Score:3, Insightful)
M$ chooses not to comply to the requirements.
This is the point. Sell what the customers wants, you can't force the customer to buy by your rules forever.
I am reminded of Detroit in the 70s. The Big Three were saying "Buy what we make because its good for the country." and the customer finally shouted back "Build what we want, or we will look elsewhere"
more US interference in Latin America (Score:2)
The US has meddled in the affairs of Latin America innumerable times. This is just another example. The ambassador should be ashamed of himself.
Innocent until proven guilty (stop laughing.) (Score:2)
As angry as Linux fanboys make me (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, it is our government's job to promote the US's interests, but Peru is right to stand up to the pressure.
Paying for software should take a back seat to paying for water and electricity.
I think mandating Open Source is a bit much, but maybe that's what they have to do to keep their departments from deviating.
I own and run MS products (Win2K, Win2K Server, XP Home, XP Pro, SQL Server 7.0, VB Studio 6.0, etc.) I like them. I haven't had any real pain from them. But I couldn't go buy them today. If I was Peru I'd want Free Software.
But that's not what this is about. Peru didn't mandate Linux. They simply said all software must come with source, which effectively cuts out MS. It's an implicit endorsement of Open Source, but not an explicit one.
Re:As angry as Linux fanboys make me (Score:3, Insightful)
The object of the bill is not necessarily to save money, it is to ensure the integrity and security of government data and prevent proprietary file format lock-in.
Pay up! (Score:3, Funny)
And you wouldn't want to risk those potential 15,000 jobs, now would you? No matter that any real employment will be exported to the US. No, don't bother thinking about that...
We're in sad, sad times.
ugh, it doesn't make sense (Score:5, Insightful)
In his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
This makes no sense, on many levels! First of all, any company can supply open-source software. In no way does this create any barrier to any company. Even Microsoft can submit software for this purpose.
To me this quote is the same as: "Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of green army tanks, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the color." Makes no sense! Anyone can write open-source software.
Microsoft is a monopoly, an illegal one at that, so hearing them talk about free markets is damn funny.
On another level, open-source software is closer to a situation where there are no copyrights, in other words, a true free market. Copyright monopolies are exactly that, monopolies. If you need your software serviced, you have to call exactly one company for permission (or even to have the work done). You have more freedom with open-source than proprietary software. Governments should be supporting freedom!
Of course, I'm not surprised. Microsoft did the same thing in Mexico. Free markets, my ass. Microsoft is just buying their way in and taking advantage of poorer countries.
Having a beef with Europe (Score:2, Insightful)
Similarly, MS could produce "open" software for use in Peru in order to compete in the free market according to local regulations. That would mean a big shift in its own practices which it is not prepared to make. I have some sympathy for the MS position. Remember the bit in Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy where Arthur Dent is told he had free access to the plans to demolish the Earth to make way for a hyperspace bypass. That is, if he can get to Alpha Centauri, get into the basement of the planning office, break open a locked safe etc.
But I'm still not eating American beef.
you missed a few points! (Score:4, Insightful)
n his June letter, Hamilton said that while the United States doesn't oppose the development of open-source software, it prefers to support a free market where the quality of the product can determine the issue.
He added that by excluding proprietary software companies like Microsoft, Peru would be hurting an industry that "has the potential to create 15,000" jobs in the local economy.
Well, what makes Hamilton (what an ironic name!) think that Peru has not made up it's mind about the quality of the software? I certianly have.
More, how is a GOVERNMENT spec for software purchases going to interfere with private purchases of software. What kind of "free market" is there in goverenment puchasing to begin with.
One more thing, who says that free software won't create jobs? It seems to me that free software has made more jobs here in the US than any single company ever will. Witness sendmail, Apatche, BSD, Linux, and others. What do Sun, Microsoft, HP, Compaq, IBM and other silly spellings have to compare to the thousands of jobs out there tending email, websites, company accounts and what not? Free software can do anything comercial software can and usualy does it better.
I'm disgraced. Our ambasador is meddling in an internal purchasing matter for reasons that don't make sense on their face for the sake of a few US companies. The decision is neither in the best intrests of the US as a whole nor even philisophicaly consistent. As Bill Gates goes in to buy government officials, our Government will be smeared with the corruption. Who will respect our wishes or opinions when we are so frivolous with them?
Well is it wrong??? (Score:2)
But sadly this American Administration is more interested in serving big business and not the people. Was that to be expected? Yes after Bush received 350 million in support what else could you expect? Talk about "Indulgence"!!!
The land of the free, indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
It used to be that the U.S. was known for promoting freedom, in the guise of democracy and free markets, to other countries. Now, we have our diplomats promoting to keep those same countries in the grasp of a predatory monopolist that we ourselves convicted.
They can say they're not against free software all they want, but the industry they're promoting is not one that is known for giving freedoms to its users and it one that is clearly afraid of the true freedom that free software can give.
Re:The land of the free, indeed (Score:5, Informative)
When was this? Maybe before the US backed execution of Allende in Argentina to the great benefit of ITT [ucsb.edu] but after installing a friendly dictator for United Fruit (Chiquita) in Guatemala?
Those are the examples that come to mind that combine both the stumping for single companies and the deaths of thousands of people instead of promoting freedom, the world is littered with more.
A recent gem in the stumping for individual companies department that comes to mind is the Bush administration putting pressure on India for an Enron power plant [consortiumnews.com].
I think you need to read some more history.
Re:The land of the free, indeed (Score:3, Informative)
The State DEpartment's job (Score:2)
This isn't a very good argument, at least on its face. If you were being unfairly imprisioned in another country, it wouldn't be right for the US State Department to refuse to help you because you had unresolved legal problems back in the US (asuming you're not a fugitive). It might undermine their ability to help you, but the State department's job is to look out for US interests in other countries, not to apply self interpreted legal punishment on people and corperations.
This is a teeny tiny favor compared to the lenient settlement they got from the Justice Department.
Nice perspective (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't think I could put it much more accuratly than that!
this is nothing (Score:2)
The Sad Truth (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, these days I think this is a catch-22, if you want to promote U.S. enterprise, by definition you've pretty much gotta support the ones in court.
Seriously, though, it would be hard to define such a standard (at least for big business) since large enough companies are almost always the target of some sort of litigation or investigation, many of which are small or without merit, and are simply a function of their size, history, numerous divisions, and the law of numbers when they employ thousands of individuals. I'm not going shed tears for big business, but even corporations should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and even for the guilty ones government officials should not seek to impose extra-legal restrictions and punishments beyond whatever punishments are decided in court (although as citizens and consumers we are always free to voice our opinion and deny them our business and government agencies should evaluate potential suppliers based on past conduct).
That being said, the adoption of open source software abroad should have positive economic benefits to North America: with the bulk of open source developers based in the U.S. there is probably a quantifiable net benefit to skills and innovation as well as benefits to the many small businesses that rely on open source products and service for productivity gains and revenue. Politicians should be encouraged to promote this industry as well, especially with small business being the real lifeblood of the economy.
Convince? (Score:2, Insightful)
For those who think the US has every right to pursue pushing its own companies, that's fine. But I would hope that we would push companies in compliance with our own laws. Regardless, I would still like to see Linux in Peru.
I call him Bill Gates... (Score:5, Funny)
"The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever", "The Bill protects equality under the law", "The Bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software" - As far as I know, Mr. Gates doesn't do any of these things, strange that the Peruvian government thinks so.
It's Not Just About Money (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm an American, and I don't want to sound disloyal or anything (especially when Ashcroft's jackbooted thugs could be reading this...oops did I say that?), but I think that nations should search for indiginous solutions to their problems -- especially for something as important as a national IT infrastructure. Suppose the United States or Microsoft threatens to flip the "off" switch on Peru? A nation should not endanger its autonomy without a good reason.
It isn't always possible to avoid. Countries like Japan depend upon food imports. They can't grow enough to feed themselves, and they can't starve, so their stuck with that. However, Linux enables any country with the right vision to develop its own IT talent (and prevent a lot of money from leaking overseas) without much risk.
Foreign trade is good but, whenever possible, nations should not become so dependent on foreign goods and services that they can't live without them.
Steve
Re:It's Not Just About Money (Score:5, Interesting)
And with the new licencing plans from MS, where the operating system will be calling back home every now and then, it will be terribly easy to switch the off button. Much easier than right now.
The new licensing system will create a situation where the person in control of the licence server at Microsofts headquarters will be able to virtually stop the economy of a country just by issuing a command.
Re:It's Not Just About Money (Score:3, Offtopic)
No, I'm real sorry, but the econoy really is tanking. You'd have to go back to 1931 to see anything nearly as bad. But none of that is the fault of the Bush administration, Congress, or other elected officials. If any politicians can be blamed, it'd be the ones who've already left office - the economy was headed for the shitter before Bush was elected.
In fact, I can pinpoint the exact time when everything really went to hell: In May 2000, the Federal Reserve Bank raised its target for the federal funds rate 50 basis points. The economy was already headed downhill when this action was taken, but the Fed, being overly aggressive, never bothered to observe the already serious effects of its previous rate increases before delivering what turned out to be the knockout punch. The bursting of the dot-com bubble, already underway, would have been enough by itself to cause a significant recession. So, too, would the existing interest rate increases. If anything, the appropriate action in May 2000 would have been a 50 basis point decrease in the fed funds rate. The minimum prudent action would have been no change in rates and a statement noting that serious downside risks existed.
So here we are over two years later, with interest rates nearing 0, corporate spending nonexistent, with high and rising unemployment, decreasing tax revenues, and lenders unwilling and afraid to lend. Afraid to lend to consumers because consumer debt is at an all-time high, and afraid to lend to corporations over fears including accounting scandals, poor equities performance, decreasing earnings, and other issues. The Fed, far from serving its purpose of defusing the situation, has exacerbated it by failing to act in ways that reassure the markets.
Tight monetary policy of the type demonstrated by the Fed through 2000 does indeed serve to rein in a booming economy by raising costs to mainly corporate borrowers. But loose monetary policy does nothing to stimulate an economy gripped by fear. Managers are afraid to spend money because uncertainty runs high and they have fears - the other companies we're doing business with might not be around tomorrow, we might need the money for ourselves if the company really tanks, or we're afraid that a small hit to earnings might trigger a large decrease in the stock price (and therefore our own net worths). Much better, they reason, to sit tight and do nothing. The low cost of borrowing does not offset the perceived risks of overspending in a severe recession. And thus the Fed can kill a boom, but its normal weaponry is useless against prolonged deep recession.
What can be done to improve the economy? One good start would be meaningful accounting reform. Unfortunately, regardless of the actual intent of the current administration, the perception is widespread that Bush and Cheney, in particular, are deeply enmeshed in shady accounting and any attempt on their part to improve the situation will not be received as a serious one. I would advocate the fairly drastic step of mandating cash flow basis accounting for all public corporations. Ordinary Americans have to use this simple method of accounting because we're simply not allowed to have negative bank balances or to list money thrown away paying too much for a big-ticket item as an asset called "goodwill." That shit don't fly for Joe Six-pack and eliminating the double-standard for corporate America would be a nice start - not in substance, but in psychology.
Another worthwhile starting place would be drastic action by the Fed. Not 25 points here and there, but an immediate decrease in interest rates to below zero - essentially telling banks "take all you want, and we'll pay you to make large loans." Similarly, while I don't favour any more government interference in private contracts than absolutely necessary, legislation invalidating rate floors on consumer debt would have the effect of propagating Fed action all the way to the consumer. Currently, any rate decreases below about 4% do not reach the consumer at all because of these rate floors. Currently the monetary effect of rate decreases below 4% is only 1/3 of decreases when the rate is above 4%. And, as mentioned earlier, that effect is essentially zero in a climate of fear and uncertainty, since only large corporate borrowers can take advantage of the lower rates anyway, and they are least likely to do so.
But the most serious problem facing the American economy today is not Fed action or inaction, nor political corruption or accounting scandals. The immediate effect of slow corporate spending is unemployment. Unemployment quickly breeds pessimism and hopelessness. The higher the level of consumer debt and the lower the savings levels, the more serious the problem becomes. Given these economic figures in modern America, an unemployment level more than about 5% represents a serious long-term risk to any recovery. The unemployed today are remaining so for a long time, and are in most cases unable to obtain funds to see them through to recovery. These people will not be in position to take advantage of any recovery when it happens, and will further drain government coffers while on the dole. Unfortunately, unemployment is one of the hardest problems to solve. Much better to ensure, as the Fed failed to do, that it never becomes a problem, by risking 4 or even 6% annual inflation rather than allowing any but the least productive workers to be unemployed. Ideas about a healty level of unemployment have changed over the years. I would like Americans to wake up to the fact that 6% unemployment, once considered a sign of a healthy economy, is in fact a sign of severe depression, and 3.8-4.5% should be considered the upper limit in the future. As savings continue to decrease and debt to increase, the acceptable level of unemployment will fall further. I expect that by 2050, levels of debt and savings will be so disproportionate that any measurable unemployment at all will be catastrophic. Americans have built our economy on an unsustainable foundation of consumer debt and greed and will pay the price down the road. That process has already occurred, in the 1930s after the 1920s brought the introduction of easy consumer credit, and this has already begun again.
What does this have to do with our favourite monopoly? A lot. Microsoft plays on the current environment of fear to manipulate the government. With huge reserves of cash, substantial ideological backing in the administration, and continuing reasonable quarterly results, Microsoft is one of the few companies in position to take advantage of the economic climate. Unfortunately for them, the US market is effectively saturated - they have already bought out, swallowed, crushed, outlawed, or stolen products from every major competitor they've had. They soundly defeated the federal government in court despite losing nearly every factual aspect of the case against them. So expansion is proving difficult; additional revenue from the transition to subscription-based software is being offset by competition from Linux and other technologies which Microsoft has been largely unable to control. At the same time, the company's reputation has never been worse. Microsoft's management undoubtedly recognizes that the only reason for the company's continued survival is customer lock-in. As such, they must try to find new markets for their products abroad while they are still in a favorable enough position to exploit them.
The difficulty Microsoft has in taking its products abroad is that they are simply too expensive. In fact, they're too expensive for Americans as well, but the difference is, again, lock-in; transition costs away from Microsoft are still prohibitively high for many American corporations and most consumers. Foreign customers don't always have this problem, especially in developing economies where IT infrastructure is poorly developed. So to compensate for the high prices of its software licenses and subscriptions, Microsoft has and will continue to offer steep discounts to developing nations, especially governments. There are only two sources of revenue for corporations in such economies: the local government, and American companies. Microsoft needs to ensure that both of those sources of revenue are well locked-in to its own proprietary technologies, especially file formats, so that it can capture the foreign business as it matures. Microsoft's actions in Peru are exactly what any reasonable businessman would expect. They are using their near-term advantages - large cash reserves and a favourable relationship with the US federal government - to overcome their long-term difficulties and extend their market leadership abroad. Best of all for them, they are doing it at a time when their competitors are generally unable to act, owing to the climate of fear and uncertainty accompanying the deeply negative economic climate.
It all ties together rather neatly - Microsoft looks healthy (cash reserves for a rainy day like today), employs people, and thus the government, even a leftist government, is not going to take any serious action against them. Support of the type we see here is neither surprising nor unusual. Microsoft has carefully positioned itself and is taking advantage. The error most readers of /. will make is to assume that the technical and microeconomic debate ongoing among the Peruvian government, the US government, Microsoft, and the Free Software community is relevant to the issue. It is not. Thie meaningful part of this debate is the one centering around macroeconomic factors, and Microsoft's advantages in that area are staggering. They will win this debate because their corporate strategy has been tailored to do so.
Microsoft is not a technology company. It never has been. The truly intriguing aspect here is that Microsoft has also ceased to be a marketing company in the traditional sense - appealing to mid-level managers and consumers who make most purchasing decisions. Instead, Microsoft is going for the jugular of the world economy by pursuing government business and favourable legislation (or legislation unfavourable to competitors, which is even better). They have secured the rear with lock-in, their flanks with huge cash reserves, and are now advancing in the only direction open to them. One cannot help but be impressed by the strategy. It is anything but subtle, yet stands a very good chance of succeeding. I'm curious to see whether and how long Microsoft allows small-time competitors like Apple and the Free Software movement to exist. I'll be watching closely.
Growing Industry (Score:4, Insightful)
An IT industry covers quite a spectrum of jobs. There are your lower-level technicians and support staff. There are higher-level system and network administrators. There are system architects who identify organization's need and designs an appropriate sytem from available components (or identies components needed). There are programmers who build those additional components.
The only time any of these jobs require Microsoft is when the organization has already invested in Microsoft solutions. And even then - change will happen whether Microsoft is used or not (witness the slow deprecation of many long-standing Novell networks and the migration from one version of Windows to another).
If the Government of Peru invests heavily in a Linux or *BSD infrastructure, it will still have to hire a whole gambit of IT workers to support its environment. If the 15k job figure is correct then it will be 15k IT professionals with a background in Open Source systems and software.
Closed source and national security. (Score:3, Insightful)
Red Hat is an American Company Too (Score:4, Insightful)
Requiring software to come with modifiable source code does not discriminate against any company. It should just be considered part of the specification that is desired from the software. Since pretty much all software has source code, it is only a business decision (like pricing, the color of the box, bundling, etc.) whether or not to release the source code with the binary code. As far as specs go, it is pretty easy to comply with. Easier than making a Spanish language set of documentation.
I am amazed by the audacity of trying to dictate the specs that another country's agencies want to use in a call for software. If companies don't want to bid on it, they are free to hawk their wares elsewhere.
What is next, opposition to countries that want documentation in their own peoples' languages instead of the Industry Standard (TM) American English?!?
Re:Red Hat is an American Company Too (Score:3, Insightful)
Pathetic, I know.
Re:Red Hat is an American Company Too (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft doesn't pay any income taxes, thanks to its (legal, but still dishonest) share-option acccounting scams.
self defeating (Score:2)
But if the U.S.A goverment starts threatening other goverments about the use of Microsoft products, it will be a completely different thing, and, in my mind, self defeating.
Re:self defeating (Score:2)
It is almost like a mafia selling protection.
Ironic.
15,000 potential jobs lost for Peru? (Score:2)
I think the US pressuring Peru, saying that Peru will make more money (boost their economy) by not passing this bill, I can't help but be reminded about Janis Ian's comment [janisian.com]:
Open source is US enterprise as well (Score:2)
So microsoft!=US in that case.
Heads I win, tails you lose (Score:4, Insightful)
By this logic, does this not mean that other countries must NOT use MS products? After all, these countries will be letting their vital systems run on software will be known only to Americans!
freelinuxcd (Score:3, Informative)
15,000 new jobs will be lost if you use OpenSource (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be like advocating to stop using trucks and any kind of machinery in agriculture and use horses and human power instead, that would create thousands, if not millions of jobs!
<sarcasm>So, lets give up the industrial revolution and go back to the middle ages so we can create thousands of jobs!
Let's stop using electricity, cars, planes, and computers all together! they all save jobs!</sarcasm> *sigh*
Open source is a kind of revolution in the IT industry, of course many people will lose their jobs as consequence of it, but many more jobs will be created thanks to it, and many companies will improve how they work allowing them to expand and generate more jobs. Any new tool that helps companies get their jobs done with a minimum cost is good for the economy.
Another of my favorite MS FUD is that the taxes for software are a good thing for the economy, oh well, so then is bad that companies save money? Lets duplicate taxes on software then! It will be even better! This also assumes that the money don't spent in MS software disappears in a black hole, I'm sorry, but it will be spent in more productive ways that will actually help the economy(and generate taxes) instead of just help MS economy.
Disclaimer: I work for a non IT company as software developer and system administrator using only Open/Free Source software, the company is doing quite well, thanks to the use of OSS, among other things(like having a smart boss, hi Carl!
\\Uriel
Re:Stock market (Score:5, Insightful)
But does Peru?
Re:Stock market (Score:3, Insightful)
"either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs"
It amazes me that even though our press freely prints stories about how our education system is the laughing stock of the developed world, meaning that our citizenry is composed of ignorant fools for the most part, that most of the people here still actually believe that this country is free, and that we are the good guys.
If the quote above (mine, not the one I am replying to, although I'm sure his was based on mine) is not familiar to you, and you are an American citizen, then you *are* a traitor to everything this country is supposed to stand for.
It is your fucking job to inform yourself constantly. That is what is *required* from a citizen of a free society. Do you fucking get that? This does not mean just watching CNN or your local news. (Do you know who owns your station? Their job is not to inform you, it is to maximize revenue for their parent corporation. That is *it* ) That is passive. You have a responsibility to *actively* inform yourself. (Shut the fuck up. Yes, you do.) If you are not doing that then you are *not* a good American. And please, if you do fit that category, take that flag off of your car. You have not earned the right to fly it.
Here is a very brief lesson for you:
America *is* the most violent, destructive and evil terrorist threat this world has ever faced.
Do not cry like a little bitch. If you disagree, do your fucking patriotic duty and inform yourself and then try to debate that point. The fact is you can't. Big mindfuck ( assuming you actually did some research ), huh?
Did you know we have clothing stores here called "Banana Republic"?
Do you know where the fuck the name came from?
If not, you *are* a traitor to everything this country is supposed to stand for. (Shut the fuck up. Yes, you are.) Look it up.
Corporations run America.
Period. End of sentence.
Again, come up with a fact, develop an argument, if you disagree. Otherwise, wake the fuck up.
Corporations are by their very definition, amoral, and greedy. This is not that bad if you think in terms of human life spans. But consider, they have almost all of the rights of an American citizen, none of the responsibilities, and a potentially unlimited lifespan. This *is* new. This *is* different, and this *does* need to be addressed.
So, do a search on that quote. Pull your head out of your ass. Wake up. Please.
This is an appeal from a true patriot.
If you think I'm not, and you are, then you have a lot of waking up to do.
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
How is that possibly true? And what kind of behavior is it supposed to excuse?
WHAT??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WHAT??? (Score:2)
Re:WHAT??? (Score:2)
Re:WHAT??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WHAT??? (Score:4, Funny)
Eh? Computers have been saying "Keyboard Not Present - Press F1 to Continue" for years.
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
Its like trying to breathe in a room where someone is slowly sucking the air out.
-Sean
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
Please lay off the "M$" thing. It's juvenile. it doesn't help your argument. It's silly to attack a corporation for making money -- it's why they exist. If you need a substitute, use "MSFT" or something.
Re:Stock market (Score:4, Interesting)
We shouldn't resign ourself to the current status quo when things can be changed for the better right now.
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
Re:Stock market (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see how Peru adopting Free Software for government use is going to put Microsoft out of business. My thinking is, it will make essentially no difference at all to the profitability for Microsoft. How much Microsoft Product does the Peruvian government pay for on an annual basis now?
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
However, why should the US use strongarm tactics to take money from a poor country like Peru to give to rich stock-owners and software engineers in one of the richest countries in the world ?
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
Re:Stock market (Score:5, Insightful)
protecting existing companies and ensuring that they don't falter like WorldCom and Enron is essential
This is wrong on several levels. Companies like Worldcom and Enron should falter, and the government should do nothing to help them. Soviet-style economies are known for propping up decreipt corporations rather than letting them fail -- it's letting them fail that helps ensure competition and free markets. Propping up an otherwise doomed company may make things better for some people in the short term, but it's disasterous long-term.
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
On the good side-effects, the US is better off every time MS sells software to foreing countries. So the net effect depends on how much MS hurts your economy by making US companies inefficient (higher costs) in relation of how much "taxes" they collect from abroad.
The problem MS sees is that if the "foreign taxes" get low, then the US should better end the monopoly ASAP. So MS NEEDS TO BUY POLITICIANS to FUD foreign countries representatives. If the rest of the world gets rid of the MS tax, so must the US. They can't let that happen. It would be their end.
Also note MS can't create ANY jobs in Peru. What they actually do is take the dollars away from their economy and back to the US banks. They need to keep 15000 employees just as IRS needs employees. No good for Peru, no love Peru, just FUD.
FUD Alert (Score:2)
Calling it a tax is FUD on the same level as the RIAA trying to call people who listen to copyrighted music without paying for it "pirates".
Re:Stock market (Score:2, Interesting)
I know everyone hates Microsoft but they are a big corporation and they do have a major influence on the rest of the American economy. Right now, the US needs Microsoft.
Microsoft has spent the past decade illegally using its monopoly power to levearage its usually inferior, often unstable software products throughout society. These products, deliberatly designed to be incompatible with widely accepted standards, and to drive competitors (often with superior products) out of business, have been responsible for uncountable damage to our economy, due to needless system crashes, excessive vulnerability to viruses, poor security, and intentional incompatiblity.
At the same time Microsoft has drained countless billions of dollars from average Americans, much of it through the "Microsoft Tax" it used its monopoly power to illegally impose through PC vendors, Microsoft has paid relativly little in taxes; in fact, over the past two years their tax rate was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits.
Some people think, anecdotaly, that Microsoft products have improved their lives, but on closer examination it inevitably becomes apparent that these products are inferior to and more expensive than products offered by competitors, or products that would have been offered had those competitors not been driven out of business or intimidated from even entering into a business that Microsoft might percieve as a threat to their monopoly.
The U.S. "needs" Microsoft only in the sense that a heroin addict "needs" their dealer to keep them supplied with smack. What they percieve as the thing that is absolutely essential is in fact the thing that is slowly draining their life away.
Peru and other developing countries would be well advised to stay as far away from Microsoft as they can. Embracing open source and standards-based computing will be a vastly better alternative for their whole society, in the short and long runs.
As for us (North) Americans, the sooner we can get the Microsoft Monkey off our backs the better off we, and the world, will be.
Re:Stock market (Score:2)
The US needs ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft: 48,000 employees, $28 billion in annual sales, sells crappy closed source software.
So, by your criterion of "big is good", IBM is 2 to 5 times as good as Microsoft.
Seriously
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
The world's leading computer manufacturers (Dell, HP, Compaq, etc.) ship Microsoft-based systems.
They still can, and will, if Peru adopts an open-source mandate.
If you cut out Microsoft from *consideration*, you cut out huge areas of the US service industry.
Why should Peru make that a primary consideration? Or any consideration at all?
Let free trade and market forces determine which technology to choose, not some ideology.
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
Are their Linux IT companies to help the Peruvian government manage their systems? Yes. Are they chances good they'll be around in six months?
Yep. "IBM"
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
As was pointed out in the article, Microsoft doesn't respect free trade or market forces.
And it's worth pointing out that "free trade" is itself an ideology. Most ideologies claim not to be ideologies. The preceding statement is not an ideology. Heh.
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
Oh, they said so in the article so it must be true. What aspects of free trade or market forces has Microsoft violated, pray tell me? Antitrust law by itself is against the basic tenets of free trade. It forces different rules on sellers based on how much their competitors suck.
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
- Free access to public information by the citizen.
- Permanence of public data.
- Security of the State and citizens.
i.e., the bill says "we think this kind of software best suits our needs at this time". Microsoft isn't being cut from consideration more than any other company is; Microsoft just doesn't choose to produce the kind of software the Péruvian government is interested in. Many of those companies (plus IBM) ship free software-based systems as well. The more people that adopt Linux, the more money there is to be earned in the support industry. So the Péruvian government shouldn't use Free software because their vendor would collapse in six months? That's extreme. Is IBM going to collapse in six months?A summary of your post: the U.S. economy relies on Microsoft (paragraph 2); Linux companies are all going to be bankrupt in half a year (paragraph 3); let different products compete for the business (paragraph 4). I don't see how [2] and [3] are true, first of all, and as for [4], Congressman Villanueva has let free software and Microsoft products compete: he compared them, and chose what looked like the best choice to be the government standard in his bill. Microsoft argued with his conclusions in the aforementioned letter [pimientolinux.com], and Congressman Villaneuva promptly annihilated those arguments in his response [pimientolinux.com].
Please explain to me.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The legislation leaves the door entirely open for Microsoft to develop open source applications and sell it to the Peruvian government. Should Microsoft choose not to bid in that field, is that the Peruvian government's fault? In fact, they are letting market forces decide and it is the American Ambassador who is getting in the way of that.
In fact, if anything, this is the embodiment of the capitalist mentality. Entity A desires a product with various features. If entity B does not or can not supply those features, they do not get the business, and some entity that can does, and more power to that other entity.
Part of the Peruvian government's desired feature list (if the legislation goes through)is a product that they can inspect, modify, and alter themselves. The Ambassador is saying "Please change your requirements so we can compete" without giving any reason to do so other than without the change, they won't (not can't)compete.
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
Sorry, I intended to expend the energy to refute your "logic" but it just isn't worth my time. If you can't read your own words over again and pick out the half-dozen or so absurdities, I say - Good day sir.
Re:Microsoft is more than just Microsoft (Score:2)
What you miss is that the bill in no way cuts out MS (or any other company) from consideration of anything.
The bill simply says "if you want to sell to the government, you must supply the source and allow us to modify it"... THAT'S ALL.
If MS doesn't want to compete, that's fine - they're not hurting anyone but themselves.
Let's get this straight: it's MS themselves - NOT the government - that will stop them from competing
Re:Peru Posible? (Score:2, Interesting)
They speak Spanish in Peru, therefor posible is the correct spelling. You can verify this on the Peru Posible website [peruposible.org.pe], which btw is the number 1 hit on google for the word 'posible'.
Re:"has the potential to create 15,000" jobs (Score:2)
As long as US companies don't put US workers first in their hiring, and as long as US companies are lying about the lack of available technical people just so they can get an H-1B brought in cheap to underpay and abuse, then why the hell should I go out of my way to favor these US companies in their foreign markets. Sure, I'd like to see more jobs here, but the fact is that companies like MSFT and SUNW are still doing more of their hiring overseas or bringing people in from overseas, than local. When you look at layoff stats and see that H-1Bs are much lower in their layoff percentages than US workers, for the larger of these companies, if you can even pry the accurate information out of them, then you know that what was going on during the peak is also still going on during the slump. And its about saving money, not about getting real talent. So I'm all in favor of Peru giving MSFT the shaft, not because I dislike MSFT products, but because I'm majorly annoyed at US companies for trying to keep US workers from being part of the benefit of global markets they sell to. I hope they give SUNW the same shaft.
Re:"has the potential to create 15,000" jobs (Score:2)
Thing is though, it's too late to bring back the american auto factory. We still have a pretty decent chance of keeping coding jobs here on our shores.
I don't think Peru should give MS the shaft, I think before Puru or any foriegn goverment wants to get involved with a US company, there should be a standard trade system in place. In it's current form, coders are treated much like a commodity, it's volume and price instead of quality and craftsmanship.
I've seen isle after isle of h1-b workers from india in a former job. Even though they were on site, and they did have masters degree's in CS, and they spoke english, the quality of what they produced was shit, constantly crashed, was in an endless cycle of QA. This had nothing to do with how smart they were, it was due to the language/cultural barriers between that office and the main offices. A similiar team of good english speaking coders from the USA (note: they could have any ancestory) in another office constantly outperformed them because of their ability to communicate with upper management.
Back to peru though..
It's time Bush got off his ass and started commodisizing the coding trade deficet. I still see no problem with MS getting the contract if they are forced to use american labor.
Re:"has the potential to create 15,000" jobs (Score:2)
What the fuck is this FUD about? People are hired and laid off based on merit. It is NOT cheaper to hire an H1-B and in fact is often much more expensive and difficult because of legal fees incurred. I know H1-Bs who have been laid off just like I know US citizens who have been laid off. The smart and qualified ones are keeping their jobs and the clueless idiots who got rapid certification because of the ".com boom" are the ones who're being laid off. It's called survival of the fittest - get used to it.
Re:You don't pay much attention, do you? (Score:3, Informative)
So, since the guy's not some clueless campaign contributor who got rewarded with an ambassadorship (I guess Péru can't compete with the Bahamas in that regard), I'd read his letter to the government as a general "stick up for U.S. business" type thing, not any specific pressuring from the Bush adminstration.
Re:You don't pay much attention, do you? (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to read an good "stick up for U.S. Business" letter? Check out the letter that Commodore Perry took to the Japanese in 1855. He, too, was pursuing the U.S.'s economic interests. Here's the link [cuny.edu].
In fact, the proclamation from Ben Franklin that sent Lewis and Clark on their way said something like "Go and explore the waterways and Tributaries of the Ohio River... for commerce" (sorry can't find a link but the original is at the Gateway Arch museum in St. Louis. And I might have a few names wrong...)
Shit, Christopher Columbus got his VC for the promise of finding better trade routes to India... It's little historical tidbiys like that, and oh maybe the silk road, which makes me think we're stuck with an exploitative economic system no matter what; it's just human nature.
Oh... touchy are we? (Score:2)
Re:"Left-hand, meet-the-right-hand" (Score:2)
Sorry, I'm just sick of always reading these complaints.
Re:I'll play devil's advocate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Go home USA! (Score:3)
And your answer is
And you have the nerve to criticize others as righteous!
Theolein, or whatever the hell your name is, I simply do not have the words to describe what a depraved, subhuman, piece of trash you are. I couldn't despise a Nazi more than you.
Everyone has the right to hate the US as much as they want, and I happen to agree that Bush is righteous and corrupt and that he and Gates can go fuck themselves. But nothing, absolutely nothing, can possibly justify what this country had to take on September 11th, and certainly nothing as puny as cola and software. When you start to come across with that kind of hatred and rage then you are the problem, you are far worse than Bush or Gates could ever be.
Re:Go home USA! (Score:3, Insightful)
No one is going to try to JUSTIFY it. It was a terrible act done by mean people--OKAY?? But if you think it has nothing to do with USA foreign policy, you have your head in the sand.
But nothing, absolutely nothing, can possibly justify what this country had to take on September 11th, and certainly nothing as puny as cola and software.
Again, no one is trying to justify anything. But I notice you don't seem to be concerned with WHY the USA is hated enough that someone would fly planes into its buildings.
People don't just wake up one day and say "You know, I want to hate a country... Hmm... Who should I hate? Howabout the USA!" They live everyday with US police (troops) marching around THEIR communities "keeping the peace". They live every day with US corporations building McDonalds restaurants and Pepsi machines right next to THEIR mosques. They see their culture and lifestyle being made more and more irrelevant every day next to US culture and lifestyles, and some of them just snap. It doesn't justify mass-murder, but it's important for the USA to see what it is doing to breed this contempt.